Is it a paradox maybe the answer for boat B is based in emotion, rather than logic. If I replace a minor detail here and there, I still feel like I have the sane boat. But if I continue that process, I might eventually feel like I have a new boat. Which effectively makes it a new boat.

Okay, gotta keep this thing alive. This is sort of a game theory exercise, but it has some philosophical implications.

You've been kidnapped by a creature that claims to have the power of foresight. The creature wants to play a game with you. He shows you two containers. One is translucent and has a beautiful gold vase inside, which the creature explains is worth about $1,000 (Container 1). You cannot see through the other box, but the creature explains that there are two possibilities for what is inside (Container 2). One possibility is that there is a spider in Container 2, which is worth nothing. The second possibility is the original Mona Lisa is inside Container 2, which is worth $50,000,000.

The creature gives you the opportunity to pick (a) just Container 1, (b) just Container 2, or (c) both of the containers. Before making your pick, the creature explains that he has already predicted what he thinks you will choose and he is almost always right. Based upon his prior prediction, he has already put either the spider or the Mona Lisa in Container 2. The contents of Container 2 will not change based upon what you pick. When predicting your decision and making the decision of what to put in the containers, if he thinks that you will choose just Container 2, he will have put the Mona Lisa in there; if he thinks that you will choose either both Container 1 and Container 2 or just Container 1, he will put the Spider in container 2.

I would, without hesitation, take both boxes . . . I am myself a determinist, but it is perfectly clear to me that any human being worthy of being considered a human being (including most certainly myself) would prefer free will, if such a thing could exist. . . Now, then, suppose you take both boxes and it turns out (as it almost certainly will) that God has foreseen this and placed nothing in the second box. You will then, at least, have expressed your willingness to gamble on his nonomniscience and on your own free will and will have willingly given up a million dollars for the sake of that willingness-itself a snap of the finger in the face of the Almighty and a vote, however futile, for free will. . . And, of course, if God has muffed and left a million dollars in the box, then not only will you have gained that million, but far more important you will have demonstrated God's nonomniscience.

I would, without hesitation, take both boxes . . . I am myself a determinist, but it is perfectly clear to me that any human being worthy of being considered a human being (including most certainly myself) would prefer free will, if such a thing could exist. . . Now, then, suppose you take both boxes and it turns out (as it almost certainly will) that God has foreseen this and placed nothing in the second box. You will then, at least, have expressed your willingness to gamble on his nonomniscience and on your own free will and will have willingly given up a million dollars for the sake of that willingness-itself a snap of the finger in the face of the Almighty and a vote, however futile, for free will. . . And, of course, if God has muffed and left a million dollars in the box, then not only will you have gained that million, but far more important you will have demonstrated God's nonomniscience.

I hadn't read that before, but that type thinking was what was driving my choice. Only in reserve. I assumed that the entity would predict my behavior as described above and therefore place the spider in the 2nd container.By selecting only the 2nd box, I feel that I am "tricking" the entity and maximizing my chance at getting the painting.

So the rational choice for me is the one that would be perceived as the least rational and therefore the one I am less likely to make.

i don't think you'd find anyone that wouldn't take both boxes, but as asimov said (i think...i only ever took one philosophy class, lol) what are your intentions? are you trying to maximize your gains, take what you can get or are you trying to prove that the creature doesn't have any foresight at all?

Kraftster wrote:Assuming its about maximizing gains, I'd absolutely take only Box 2.

well, i would think that those that want to maximize gains or prove the creature does not know what is coming would pick only box two. When it is opened if there is just a spider, the first has failed at the game and the second has won. If the Mona Lisa is actually in it, then the first has won and the second has failed as to their intentions for picking.

Kraftster wrote:Assuming its about maximizing gains, I'd absolutely take only Box 2.

well, i would think that those that want to maximize gains or prove the creature does not know what is coming would pick only box two. When it is opened if there is just a spider, the first has failed at the game and the second has won. If the Mona Lisa is actually in it, then the first has won and the second has failed as to their intentions for picking.

I like Asimov's response a lot. It sums it up for me because, like him, I'd consider myself a determinist. What you are saying basically aligns with that. I know I'd want the money and my decision would be based upon believing that the creature was right in his prediction, which would see me picking only 2.

The puzzle seems to be more challenging for people who believe they have choice and would try to decide what the creature would have guessed and do the double, triple think him like the scene in Princess Bride.

Kraftster wrote:I like Asimov's response a lot. It sums it up for me because, like him, I'd consider myself a determinist. What you are saying basically aligns with that. I know I'd want the money and my decision would be based upon believing that the creature was right in his prediction, which would see me picking only 2.

The puzzle seems to be more challenging for people who believe they have choice and would try to decide what the creature would have guessed and do the double, triple think him like the scene in Princess Bride.

My new book has inspired me to try to revive this thread with a new topic for all the lgp philosophers out there.

Epistemology - the study of knowledge. What is knowledge? What does it mean to know something? Is there objective/transcendental truth? Do we, as humans, have access to it?

I’ve been stuck lately in this ultra-skepticism when it comes to knowledge, and I’m getting kind of sick of it. If you imagine knowledge on a continuum of 1-10 -- 1 being Certainty/Objectively True, 10 being Certainty/Objectively False, and 5 being total agnosticism -- I can never know whether something is true or false because, as a human, my knowledge and/or capacity for knowledge is fallible, I’ve been stuck at a 5, which is basically epistemological nihilism.

Basically if we are debating the issue of whether the sky is blue, I’ve been drawn to, at the end of it all, saying simply that it might be blue and it might not be blue…

Functionally/practically, perhaps the limitations on our knowledge don’t really matter and that’s the best that I’ll be able to resort to in escaping the case of the “fives” that I’ve been having.

doublem wrote:"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco